remove_shape_key

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the removed key and the remaining keys are returned, but not that deletion is irreversible, what happens to keyframes or drivers pointing at the key, or what error occurs if object_name/key_name are invalid.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Short and front-loaded with the verb+resource, then Args/Returns sections. The Returns block is mild redundancy given an output schema exists, but nothing else is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter destructive operation with no annotations, the definition covers the basics and the return shape. It omits the risk profile (irreversibility, effect on animation data, failure modes), which an agent needs before calling a delete tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% (both properties are title-only), so the description must compensate. It does add meaning — object_name is a mesh object, key_name is the shape key to delete — but gives no format hints, lookup path, or whether relative/absolute names are accepted.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a shape key.' It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like add_shape_key, set_shape_key, and list_shape_keys, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., set_shape_key to zero out a key, or list_shape_keys to find valid key names first). No preconditions such as object mode or whether the Basis key is protected are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.